Deadman wrote: 1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

You then say : "Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. "

I assure you, Mr. Hunter, I am quite careful in how I use words. You are not, however. You stated that evidence drawn from paleontology, evo-devo, genetics, etc. is "theory-laden" and I asked a specific set of questions to you about your circular mode of denying the relevance of those data:

Quote

Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it: 1. You arrive and say

Quote

How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then; 5. Repeat #1.Very cute, Sir!!

To this you have replied:

Quote

The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."

But you say you won't accept genetic, paleontological, evo-devo evidence of this because it is tautological and "theory-laden"

Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it.

I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl. I find that genetic information and evo-devo data exist that indicate this common shared character has a strong and relatively unchanged time-span on this planet. I therefore will take that data to mean things on this planet are connected and have a deep time-frame in which they arose. I can do this without any evolutionary framework at all in my mind.

Now, I will ask you once again...WHAT CHARACTER/TRAIT in THYLACINES and WOLVES do you want me to compare this evidence to?

Be specific, Mr. Hunter and make sure you don't merely cite a suite of characters/traits...and please don't just point to a cartoon and say "those," because I want to finish this little thought experiment in epistemology, Mr. Hunter.

Oh, and you mentioned this about my example of patagium in phalangers/flying squirrels and pentadactyly:

Quote

Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.

Actually, it's not subjective or circular , and that is a misrepresentation of what I did say. I specifically noted that the flying squirrel and phalanger don't have structurally identical patagium...BUT their pentadactyly IS precisely the same. Further, I am in fact arguing that skin attachments and increased skin area in between attachments IS in fact easier for a strain of animals to change than basic bone structure...why do I say that? Because we have no large-scale evidence of septadactyly or octadactyly to point to. We have only pentadactyl mammals on the planet. We have only a few gliding mammals. Further, we can conduct experiments showing that basic bauplan features are far less susceptible to mutation and alteration than skin attachments to bone, especially under selection by the environment and reproductive success. None of these observations or experiments would NECCESSARILY involve any preconceived "theory-laden" position on my part.

You also claimed erroneously that I had said this:

Quote

Deadman wrote: Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?” First, this question is misphrased. The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance. In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance. Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.

Mr. Hunter: A few additional thoughts. Note that I have given responses to your questions and that I would hope that fairness and honesty in debate would compel you to respond to the questions of others directly.

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory? If you assert it is not "theory-laden", can you please explain your association with DI?

2. How did you determine that characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim? Was it due to "theory-laden" observations? On this point, I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"

4. Varying degrees of subjectivity and falsifiability are different things, sir. I suggest you learn what falisifiability is before you go equating the two. Falsifiability, in Popper's terms, primarily involves conceiving of a statement/observation that would negate claim X. Many "subjective" claims can be falsified. If, for instance, a person claims that theory-laden observations are inferior to those observations done without such theoretical "baggage," then this is an undemonstrated subjective claim. Such a claim can be falsified by pointing to observations that are "theory-laden" ( such as evolutionary theory) and showing that the observations in question are the best-supported we have, in addition to fulfilling other criteria such as testability, repeatability, etc. Conversely, I don't know of any other "theory-laden" observations that provide the breadth and depth of explanatory and predictive value that evolutionary theory has in regard to observations such as the fossil record and it's interrelations to comparative anatomical observations and genetic/evo-devo. These facts run counter to your subjective view of " inferior theory-laden" observations (beyond the fact that you have yet to even demonstrate that "theory-unladen" scientific observations even exist at all...much less the notion of "unladen" observations in general) Got it?

I eagerly await your direct and concisely unambiguous responses.

If this is to be seen as an actual exchange of claims/supporting evidence, then you have to actually respond to posts fully, Mr. Hunter, not just the parts you like.

For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.

Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.

Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.

I'd love to hear it too. I've been asking for DECADES to see a scientific theory of creation or ID, along with a demonstration of how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, all I have ever gotten are various versions of "Jesus saves!" or "I don't have to tell you."

It's almost enough to make me think that . . . well . . . there *IS NO* scientific theory of creation or ID, and all those creation "scientists" and ID "theorists" are just . . . well . . . LYING to us when they claim there is.

Are IDers lying to us when they claim there is a scientific theory of ID, Doc . . . . ?

If so, then Judge Jones was right, wasn't he.

If not, then . . . um . . . would you mind then telling us what that scientific theory of ID *is*?

Mike PSS wrote: You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals." That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.

Actually, my statement was correct. Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.

Actually, your statement was incorrect for the reasons noted. Pentadactyl pattern MUST be part of the mammilian body plan or else the nested hierarchy (thus common descent thus a large part of evolutionary theory) has a big issue to overcome.

The GENERAL statement about homology IS correct, when stated in the light of a nested hierarchy.

Do you agree that a nested hierarchy of organisms is formed from homologous structures?

Quote

Here is the entire Theobald post:

Quote

Theobald wrote: The difference is simple. In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves). In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs). This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly. Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.

Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.

If you ignore the bolded writing in the Theobald quote then you have come to the wrong conclusions. If you notice the bolded writing then you must admit that Theobald agrees with me (how presumptuous of me). The bolded statement means the pentadactyl limb pattern forms a nested hierarchy BECAUSE OF COMMON DESCENT.{cue Jackie Chan: "Do yu unnerstan the wurds cummin out of mi mouth?" Chris Tucker: "####, nobody understands the words coming out of your mouth!")

Quote

Quote

Mike PSS wrote: The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.

Very philisophical of you.Do you have any contrary evidence or are you just whinging here.I think Deadman got on the bandwagon and asked for some logical link between your "similarity claim" of pentadactyl versus thylacine/wolf. I asked you that a few days ago. Remember?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event. You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations. And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development. You need to show either...How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.ORWhat genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.

The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim.

My questions are NOT burden of proof questions. The questions are based on sound logic so that your argumentary claims can be logically LINKED to one another. Without some type of answer (notice that you only have to answer one of them) then you don't have a linked comparative argument. You just have two seperate observations that result in seperate answers. There is NO claim you can make by comparing the two observations without some logical (NOTE: NOT EVIDENTIAL BUT LOGICAL) underpinnings to your statements.

Mike PSS***********************TO THE BOARD...Is it me or are we having the same conversation on page 5 as on page 1, page 2, and page 3?When his bio outline has the following...

Quote

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics. He is Adjunct Professor of Biophysics at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science, and the forthcoming 2006 book Science's Blindspot (Baker/Brazos Press).

Dr. Hunter's research interests include optimal estimation and control of nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics. Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution involves both the scientific, historical and theological aspects of the theory.

You would think that Dr. Hunter would have a fairly clear and concise rebuttal for almost every point we've made. Because the scientific, historical and theological facts of evolution are his own interest.{cue Mugato: "Tigra, Magnum, Blue Steel, there all the same!!! Doesn't anyone notice this but me?!?!"}

He knows just as well as I do just what *honest* answers would do to the ID movement.

Just ask Judge Jones.

(snicker) (giggle)

Yes Lenny, I know.

I was being polite. Well sorta.

SteveStory has recently convinced me that his method of moderation is sound.

Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*

Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*

Yep. Also, it lets the lurkers see the vast range of evidence the creationists have to combat. People who have read this thread and have followed the references have a much better appreciation of how scientists distinguish between homology and homoplasy. The molecular evidence alone shows that marsupial wolves are wolves in name only. This thread also demonstrates how creationists exaggerate the similarities between thylacines and wolves.

Let the IDists post, ask them questions in a reasonable way and watch the buggers run for the hills. I now consider this the better strategy for showing how vacuuous creationist arguments are (to lurkers [on this board]). It seems a bit more sensible than a massive "pile-on" that lets them run while claiming victory/persecution.*

Heck, I've been asking them questions for YEARS now. The SAME questions. And never getting any answers.

As for whining about "persecution", they will whine anyway. No matter WHAT we do or don't do. Just like they did after they got their holy little asses kicked in Dover. (shrug)

What the heck, Lenny I ain't, but I undertook, in my humble pinheaded way, to at least remind Sal--or, more importantly, that "vast" ocean of lurkers--that Sal has left a few pretty basic questions unanswered:

Steviepinhead on the Evo Sunday thread on PT:

Quote

Hey, Sal, as long as you’ve reappeared here, however incoherently–

Aren’t we still waiting for your answers to Lenny’s simple, easy, little list of questions?

You know, like what the heck IS the “theory” of Intelligent Design in the first frickin’ place?

And, while we’re at it, where oh where, anywhere in the world, are there any ID-espousing scientists who are actually working in labs or the field to “test” any of ID’s hypotheses, whatever they are?

Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath for you to trip all over yourself being honest, articulate, and forthcoming with, ahem, answers to any of these obvious and seemingly easy-to-answer-if-only-ID-were-science questions.

What the heck, Lenny I ain't, but I undertook, in my humble pinheaded way, to at least remind Sal--or, more importantly, that "vast" ocean of lurkers--that Sal has left a few pretty basic questions unanswered:

I bet Sal talks pretty bravely when I'm not around . . .

If he shoots his mouth off too much, a surprise visit could certainly be arranged.

Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.

Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?...

Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.

Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,03:29)

Responding to Flank:Flank: "Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?"

And what money would that be? Please be specific.

I need the specifics (dates, amounts, and check#’s would be nice) so I can contact DI and have them re-cut and send out those checks I never received. I had no idea they sent me money. I’m thankful to Lenny for apprising me of this, I could use some cash right about now (they’ve got a lot of money, don’t they?)

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)

No, Theobald indicates that the similarity is superficially puzzling,

If it is merely superficially puzzling then why do we need evolution to explain it?

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)

, but makes perfect sense if you consider common ancestry.

Makes perfect sense? If this is your claim then we are on the same page, but the evolution claim here is that it is powerful evidence.

Quote (improvius @ Feb. 05 2007,08:44)

And you never responded to my previous comment about structure vs. proportions. Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again. Look at dog breeds. They all share a basic dog structure, but the proportions of the structure can vary tremendously. So it seems far easier for differences in prportions to evolve than it is for differences in structure. Seriously, dude, this should stuff should be pretty easy to understand. Maybe you should look into taking an intro bio course at a local community college or something.

I know my questions must seem terribly naïve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?

Quote (N. Wells @ Feb. 05 2007,10:20)

A good specific example of this is bats, birds, and pterosaurs. They all fly and all have wings. In each of them, the wing is made of a scapula, one upper-arm bone (the humerus), and two lower-arm bones (the radius and the ulna). There is no particular reason to make a wing with those particular bones: insect wings work fine with no bones whatsoever, for example.

I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.

Quote (N. Wells @ Feb. 05 2007,10:20)

If you were making wings for hovering (humingbirds), dynamic soaring (albatrosses, large pterosaurs), strong pumping flight (geese, sparrows), swimming (penguins), and waving around to impress potential mates (ostriches), it is unlikely that you would want to make wings out of the same basic components. (Since when are helicopters, submarines, sailplanes, and 747s constrained to utilize the same basic construction?)

Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way? And when they ask “says who?” how do I respond? I’m afraid saying “Evolutionists” isn’t going to cut it.

And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.

Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:

Quote

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,03:29) Responding to Flank:Flank: "Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?"

And what money would that be? Please be specific.

I need the specifics (dates, amounts, and check#’s would be nice) so I can contact DI and have them re-cut and send out those checks I never received. I had no idea they sent me money. I’m thankful to Lenny for apprising me of this, I could use some cash right about now (they’ve got a lot of money, don’t they?)

Ah the Nuremberg Defense, "I wasn't paid for being a member of an organisation that was funded by one the the most reviled men in American politics".

Smart Arse.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

But you say you won't accept genetic, paleontological, evo-devo evidence of this because it is tautological and "theory-laden"

Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so? It seems strange that the answer is that we need first to understand the evidence in the context of other evidences, most of which were not available to Darwin, for instance. But be that as it may, these other evidences bring along their own problems. I think most people will gladly accept such evidences as supports for the homology evidential argument, but only when they are not force-fit to evolution in the first place. If we brush problems under the rug, then we’re not following the data. Instead, we’re presenting a theory-laden interpretation of the evidences.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it. I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl.

And you can dig up fossils with other forms.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

I find that genetic information and evo-devo data exist that indicate this common shared character has a strong and relatively unchanged time-span on this planet. I therefore will take that data to mean things on this planet are connected and have a deep time-frame in which they arose. I can do this without any evolutionary framework at all in my mind.

Well it depends on what you mean by “things on this planet are connected.” If you mean common descent, then this very much does reflect evolutionary thinking. The existence of a character for a long time span in many species does not, in itself, imply common descent.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

Now, I will ask you once again...WHAT CHARACTER/TRAIT in THYLACINES and WOLVES do you want me to compare this evidence to?

The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution. The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.

And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer. Pick any similarity between thylacines and wolves if you feel that will help.

Okay, let's do a little epistemic thought-experiment. Suppose I am a long-lived and tirelessly industrious being on this planet, investigating it. I find that time exists. I find that radiometric dating exists. I find that pentadactyly exists in all mammals. I find that I can dig up fossils that are pentadactyl.

And Hunter replies:

Quote

And you can dig up fossils with other forms.

Really? what other fossils that fit the same pattern of non-reptilian, non -amphibian quadruped carnivore can I dig up that **doesn't** have pentadactyly within the last, oh, say 40 million years of fossil history? Why don't I see other arrangements of multidactyly for those carnivore fossils that fit the mammalian plan in that time period?

Please respond to that and my other questions above, and I will respond to yours fully. You DO want to at least give the IMPRESSION that you're not being disingenuous or deceptive, right?

And by the way, why DOESN'T comparative DNA count for you? I mean besides your claim that it too, is "theory-laden" despite you being unable to address my questions about "theory-unladen" science above?

You also might want to address what specific alternate scientific theory you have in mind when you bemoan the inclusion of such anatomical/genetic into evolutionary theory? Don't be coy, Mr. Hunter. Be bold and present your alternate theory that can encompass such data.